47 47
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

You should talk to someone who was actually there for the production of the show. I did. It was a farce designed to ensure Mucklow either ID'd Rackstraw as Cooper, or no one at all. Colbert and company were pretty disappointed when their tactics backfired on them. 

Can't say I blame them. They had stars in their eyes, and dreams of a Pulitzer and a place on the NYT bestseller list. Neither happened, which is exactly what they deserved. 

So, are you saying that they didn't show her any pictures of other suspects? Have you been told this by someone that was there or is it an assumption?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

Can't say I blame them. They had stars in their eyes, and dreams of a Pulitzer and a place on the NYT bestseller list. Neither happened, which is exactly what they deserved.

who said this was what they were shooting for? that's a projected thought. Pulitzer prize for what? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

 

Or, the production of a show that was so slanted, so phony, that it practiced outright deception and cheesy tactics in an effort to unfairly maneuver a witness to meet their goals...just for some booksales at Amazon...

 

 

Robert - 

No one here has had anything positive to say about that show. No one. I think Colbert has done some really good things for the Cooper investigators, but that show and the evidence against Rackstraw is absolute garbage. No one has said otherwise, so please drop that narrative.

I asked you a simple question that you did not answer: Did someone involved with that show, that was at the Tina Mucklow interview, specifically tell you that they did not show her pictures of other suspects? Simple question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Cooper Vortex said:

Robert, who exactly is “Cooper Royalty” In your opinion?

I'm not Robert, but I think I can answer this:

"Cooper Royalty" is a term that carries with it a certain level of negativity. If you are referred to as "Cooper Royalty", it is usually not a compliment. The purpose of the term "Cooper Royalty", is to paint those being referred to as "Cooper Royalty" in a negative light while at the same time doing just the opposite for the person using the term. The term "Cooper Royalty" is used primarily by only one person in particular on certain forums, blogs and articles. However, reality is that there is actually no such thing as "Cooper Royalty", as it only exists inside the head of the person who created the term, and in a fictional place known as "Cooperland" (another term created by the same individual that is usually used as a term to describe the fictional land of negativity where all of "Cooper Royalty" as well as the rest of the evil "truth fearing" people that oppose his theories on a certain case reside).

 

Hope that helps.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

You are right. You are not me. B|

The term Cooper Royalty is assigned to a small group of people involved in the Cooper case who are supported by every other member of that group, no matter how they deal with the public, or what ridiculous (and often negative) behavior they exhibit. I could give a good example or two, but I already did. 

"Cooper Royalty" is Robert's term but it exists in function..

I disagree with one point, they do attack each other..

There are people who try to control and own the Cooper narrative by subversive means. They go beyond mere disagreement, to varying degrees they employ lies, disinformation, personal attacks, double standards, disrespectful and dismissive attitudes. "Cooper Royalty" can collude or fight amongst themselves for control.

This is a very common internet thing, either people can't argue their position with facts, logic and reason or they are ignorant of the facts and resort to toxic tactics to win. These people desire to control the narrative over advancing the case. The perpetrators usually have nothing new to contribute.

This is beyond normal disagreement... which is part of healthy debate.

 

I have been in contact with many Cooper people who agree.

 

The "politics" in the Cooper case are a distraction. 

 

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ParrotheadVol said:

Robert - 

No one here has had anything positive to say about that show. No one. I think Colbert has done some really good things for the Cooper investigators, but that show and the evidence against Rackstraw is absolute garbage. No one has said otherwise, so please drop that narrative.

I asked you a simple question that you did not answer: Did someone involved with that show, that was at the Tina Mucklow interview, specifically tell you that they did not show her pictures of other suspects? Simple question.

So again, Robert chooses to not answer this question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2019 at 8:40 AM, FLYJACK said:

I have filled in this redacted FBI document and it I am 99% it is correct..

It is a Hahneman document but the witness ID was a bit of work.. the type is uniform so everything comes down to letter count. Robert Gregory is the only witness that fits, he is also the one that described Cooper as having Marcelled hair. Normally, the names of Cooper suspects who have died are not redacted, Hahneman's name is redacted throughout even though he died almost 30 years ago. I believe they have redacted his name because he was never eliminated. The FBI had Hahneman's passport image on June 1... I have many photos of Hahneman and he does look quite different in the face as his weight fluctuated. He also had a turkey neck.

Hahneman did have curly/marcelled hair, he was swarthy and latin in appearance.

 

gregoryhahneman.jpeg.ecf90fb92021d931e6911fea34292254.jpeg

 

More context for Robert Gregory's FBI statement..

 

Gregory described Cooper's hair.. "Hair itself should be marcelled and hair style of President Nixon is quite similar to what UNSUB had. Hair should be slicked down as characters wore in old George Raft movies."

Hahneman's hair was curly/marcelled parted on left and sometimes slicked back.. he had a swarthy complexion and Latin features. 

Hahneman's mother was Honduran and father a German with American citizenship but his complexion was documented as dark. Swarthy Germans were called "Black Dutch"...

 

raftnixonl.jpeg.132b2f4b1c19773a91a56ef4be4e0f57.jpeg

 

George Raft/ Hahneman / Nixon

rafthahnixona.jpg.fc32ef3a659fca04a9bd925af8d33fda.jpg

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked Tom Colbert who was the exc-producer if pictures were shown to Tina. he replied that he didn't know. if anyone knew it would of been him. he was about as involved as one could get. it really doesn't matter because Tina would of watched the show. who wouldn't watch a program they were involved in or about a case they were involved in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I believe him. not everyone is a liar. what purpose does he have with his answer of not knowing. was he was lying and she did look at the photo's. which way you want this? 

You made a joke that backfired on you. it was pure malice in it's intent. I see we are now back to discussing other forums and people once again due to your comments...

I heard minimum of three alerts. I even replied twice that you were blocked and still got alerts. 

First response of block..

"Sorry, but I put you on ignore in my PM's today after I posted. you are a broken record and I've grown tired of it. "

Second response

"sorry, all I see is the notification. I don't know why you keep posting a PM...." 

more notifications followed...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Flo said that she wouldn't be able to ID Cooper in photos five years after the hijacking..

Does anybody actually think Tina or Bill could 45+ years later.. 

The actual witnesses will have trouble remembering 40 years back. most people with suspects have perfect memory, detailed like yesterday :) 

 

I do believe if a picture of Cooper was shown it would trigger there memory...

Edited by mrshutter45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Flo said that she wouldn't be able to ID Cooper in photos five years after the hijacking..

Does anybody actually think Tina or Bill could 45+ years later.. 

No. But I do think that they could look at some suspects and positively say that it wasn't them. 

Edited by ParrotheadVol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blevins - C'mon man. We can go back through the history on this site and find many times when it was "Exit Stage Left" and you were done with Cooper. We all know that you ain't leaving the Cooper case. This year, next year, 5 or 10 years down the road, whatever. It won't matter. This is in your blood and you can't simply flip a switch and quit. So, quit lying to us and yourself and just take ownership of your addiction to all things DB Cooper. Embrace it, there's nothing wrong with it. My only advice would be to find a better suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's no excuse for an author to knowingly allow error's to be in a book for years. this is damage to your credibility. it doesn't matter what you did outside of the book. it's the book with the error's. waiting for a movie is no excuse either. 

So, I can say you rob banks on my forum and leave it there and post somewhere else you didn't? not everyone follows what happens after a book is published. not every person writes a review either. it's wrong anyway you look at it..you willingly allow false information to continue. 

You revise the same edition. you don't have to add anything. you fix what's broken or remove it...

Edited by mrshutter45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

By the way...I don't have a problem with it, but...you sure ask me a LOT of questions and send a lot of comments my way for someone who doesn't want to hear from me and blocked PM's.

You send the PM's and not me.....I responded to them. I just got tired of the broken record. you skew off topic even offline. the recent one was about the placard and you went off topic as usual. lets get that straight. you are making it out like I contacted you...it's more like you are the one interested in what I have to say or you wouldn't contact me in the first place  :)

Edited by mrshutter45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2019 at 8:58 PM, RobertMBlevins said:

You cherry-picked from the main body of what I wrote concerning the show. I have heard from a reliable source how the whole program went, and the goals of the production. It wasn't done to get Mucklow to look at suspects. It was done to (hopefully) put her in a position to identify Rackstraw...and ONLY Rackstraw... as Cooper. 

The book scheduled for release, a book ON Rackstraw...a book NAMING him as the hijacker...coming out the very next day after the show premiered...

That should have been a hint the entire show was a farce from start to end. Right around the time the show aired, the FBI were crashing in the doors of LMNO Productions with a warrant to search the premises and seize their financial records. As a result of that scandal, LMNO lost several lucrative TV contracts. 

Yeah...it was a fair, balanced, and professionally-done investigation all the way.  (If you believe THAT, I have some beachfront property in Kansas you might be interested in.)

Billy Jensen didn't think so. And he was part of the team. B| No worries, though. I have no allegiances to anyone in Cooperland. I question everything, especially if there is a legit reason to do so. 

EDIT: Money bag brought on board the plane for Cooper:  All I know is what Rataczak said. He described it as white, canvas or heavy cloth type, said there were handles on it. I dunno. Like everyone else who posts here...I wasn't there either. And I have no idea what he meant by 'hapsack'. When I reviewed Google Images using the terms 'canvas, white, vintage, and bank bag,' it came up with this picture. Description said it was an old one from Wells Fargo. 

vintageBankBag.jpg

Not that it matters, but I have always had one thought about the Cooper case. It is too bad that one of the stews, especially Alice Hancock, didn't think to inquire among the First Class passengers if any of them had a snapshot camera in their carry-on. If so, she could have parted the curtain less than an inch and maybe got a quick shot of Cooper at some point, especially if he stood up to use the bathroom. If this had been done, we probably wouldn't even be discussing the case now. But no one thought of it. 

Ok, this is confusing to me.  Did we watch the same broadcast?

 

The History Channel DB Cooper doc was two separate tracks.  One was Tom Colbert’s research on Rackstraw.  The second separate track was Jepsen and Fuentes researching the story.  At the end, Colbert believed it was Rackstraw, Colbert and Jepsen did not.  The documentary was not a vehicle to push Rackstraw as a candidate.

 

I met Jepsen and Fuentes when they interviewed Vicki ( which was not included in the broadcast).  They did not have any preconceived notions at all.  In fact, they hadn’t done any research about the case in advance at all.

 

But, it was not a pro-Rackstraw broadcast.  If anything it was the opposite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

47 47